Saturday, September 08, 2007 5:19:23 PMokay this is stupid the cop shoulda just left and gotten a warrent if he thought he could, the only reason to ME that he wouldn't is either he's stupid or he thinks there is no probable cause... i feel sad that this guy was BADLY HARASSED

Saturday, September 08, 2007 4:54:08 PMNo one here claims to be a lawyer, so we're all just guessing. But to me, in all of this, the two people who should be REQUIRED to actually know the law and not be guessing (the two government workers--cop and health inspector) did not know the law. The cop just bumbled around with anti-logic ("well, if you don't got noth'n to hide...")and the health inspector wouldn't even state her name or what she was doing there. I mean, WTF was up with that?!

If they new the law, they could've walked up with whatever they needed or didn't need (warrant or whatever) and informed the property owner of why they were there and what his rights were and what they were not. The fact that they didn't and couldn't is inexcusable. Just being a cop or government employee does not make you right!

Saturday, September 08, 2007 4:51:11 PMFurthermore for those that bring up that INSPECTORS have the "power of entry" to follow through on their reasonable inspection duties, and they have this power above police officers to enter without a warrant, it's important to note that those laws are only in effect in the UNITED KINGDOM and not in UNITED STATES, in the USA you need a warrant bar none unless the crime is recent and you have reliable indicators to prove it is happening.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 4:42:32 PMThe worst part is now that I think about it, that she CAME BACK, this directly violates the "recent" element of probable cause in such a blatant way it makes this second violation bigger than the first.

*****Think of it this way: If you commit a crime two weeks ago and the police think you might have some stolen property in your house, they'll go to a judge and get a warrant. If the cops are literaly chasing you down and you run home to hide out in your basement, they have every right to knock down your door and make an arrest.****

Anyway you are mixing up two different laws, there is another which says if a crime is being committed the officer can go ahead and deal with the crime, however no crime was being committed. This is referred to as a crime in progress.

Again a call from a RANDOM person is the OPPOSITE of RELIABLE EVIDENCE to Indicate the commission of a crime.

The fact the government CAME BACK means the situation is the OPPOSITE of recent. Blatant crime.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 4:33:21 PM*****The police or certain government inspectors do not need a warrant if there is reasonable grounds to assume a crime has recently occured or is occuring that involves the subject individual. Yes, the police can't just come onto your property and start poking around, but if there is reasonable grounds to do so they have all the authority to do so.*******

Cashcleaner, you are an idiot, and are mixing up two completely different laws. Reasonable Grounds are not required, the term is "probable cause" where in a bureaucratic system irrelevant of oppinions within the system, (such a a HUNCH) requires reliable short term evidence that a crime is taking place.

The reliable evidence part is directly legally applicable and is the key thing to remember here. The only thing that constitutes reliable evidence is seeing something that looks illegal or IS illegal.

The inspector (government official), has NO reliable evidence to shows a crime was taking place.

And to xavier687, it doesn't matter whether he was doing something illegal or not. That is not the case. In fact, I personally believe he probably was installing an illegal septic tank.

The case here is whether government officials were breaking the law. And since there was no immenent threat (bomb, killer, etc) and the health inspector did not have a warrant, she had no legal ground upon which to search his property.

I believe that she should have been there to make sure that the drinking water wouldn't be contaminated. But she should have done it properly to preserve the sanctity of privacy and law.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 3:24:18 PMTHE REAL STORY BEHIND THIS VIDEO...The dude was installing a septic tank. Septic tanks have to be permitted, installed by professionals and issued a final inspection. The neighbors called the health department on him and he is trying to prevent himseld from getting fine and/or jailed. The dude is totally wrong and the health inspector has probable cause to enter the property, even if she doens't tell hime what she is there for.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 3:12:48 PMI think the worst part here was the cops justification for being able to walk onto the property w/o a warrent, "If you don't want to let us on, then you obviously have something to hide (and you must be guilty)." That isn't probable cause. Our freedom is in great danger if that ever becomes probable cause. Thats some 1984 poo right there. Scary.

Besides, even if there was a call from a neighbor regarding an illegal septic tank, how hard would it really be to get a warrent?

Saturday, September 08, 2007 1:19:05 PMi don't know who's side i'm on. yeah, the property owner sounds like a total di.ck. But then i would be hella pissed if a fat cop and dirty lookin health inspector wanted to look around and wouldn't leave. i wanted to punch her face through the screen >:|

Saturday, September 08, 2007 1:02:28 PM"There is no way you can bust into someone's house without a warrent. Even if they just commited a murder, you cannot."

That's not accurate. It falls under the category of exigent circumstances which allow cops to enter homes without a warrant.

Blacks Legal Dictionary:exigent circumstances. 1. A situation that demands unusual or immediate action and that may allow people to circumvent usual procedures, as when a neighbor breaks through a window of a burning house to save someone inside. 2. A situation in which a police officer must take immediate action to effectively make an arrest, search, or seizure for which probable cause exists, and thus may do so without first obtaining a warrant. • Exigent circumstances may exist if (1) a person's life or safety is threatened, (2) a suspect's escape is imminent, or (3) evidence is about to be removed or destroyed.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:35:08 PM"Think of it this way: If you commit a crime two weeks ago and the police think you might have some stolen property in your house, they'll go to a judge and get a warrant. If the cops are litteraly chasing you down and you run home to hide out in your basement, they have every right to knock down your door and make an arrest."

You need a Warrent for their arrest too. There is no way you can bust into someone's house without a warrent. Even if they just commited a murder, you cannot. If you listen to police officers before they enter, they knock and say "We have a warrent for your arrest, come out now, or we will use lethal force."

Then if the person DOESN'T come out, they can break in.

What this man did was not being a 'Prick', he was defending his right as an individual, and stating that unless those people had a warrent, signed by a judge, they could not enter, and if they did, he would have no choice but to sue.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:26:50 PMBraddock, your expert legal analysis and gurantee notwithstanding, and ignoring your ignorance of the concept of curtilage, what exactly was in "plain view" that seemed suspect? Dirt piles? A backhoe? Some tubes? Are any of those things, either alone or together, illegal?

Are you arguing in all instances of dirt piles, backhoes, and tubes on property, those things constitute probably cause for a search?

Plain view arguements are all well and good, but what in plain view suggested illegality?

A government agent, with the intent of inspecting and photographing property which probably is contained within a person's curtilage, which even in plain view does not constitute an emergency or anything illegal, is NOT a SEARCH HOW????? Seriously, please expand on your arguement.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:13:48 PMIn an article written by an FBI legal advisor, he states that "If the area in question is very close to the residence, that fact alone will likely cause the area to constitute curtilage."

So, if I had to predict, I say she entered his curtilage for the purpose of a search without a warrent and without probable cause as supported by a warrent which states what is to be looked for and what property is to be searched.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:59:59 AMA little more research yields the case of U.S. v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987). In that case, the Supreme Court listed 4 considerations to be made in determining the extent of someone's curtilage, those considerations being: "the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."So we see its a tough call. 1) The land was right next to his home, it actually touched it. 2) It was not enclosed. 3) It was his front yard 4) He did not take steps to conceal it.

So, 2 factors suggest its a curtilage, 2 factors do not. A court would have to judge this one. Interesting real life case.

An NO, mentioning the 4th Amendment of both his State and the US Constitution is not a LOOPHOLE, its a constitutionally guranteed right.

It was just a fat cop and an annoying government worker being told to leave for 9 minutes by a dude who reads bills/ammendments/constitutions just to find loopholes, and anything that will benefit him if he gets into court.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:44:29 AMI would have done the same thing he did. In fact, I may have argued to the cop that I have the right to use reasonable force to prevent a trespass (I can block her, even push her). Courts do support that notion actually. I wouldn't strike her. But I would physically stop her.

I do wish we had a credible report on what transpired legally after this.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:36:19 AM2) So whats a curtilage? Black's law dictionary: "The land or yard adjoining a house, usu. within an enclosure. • Under the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage is an area usu. protected from warrantless searches."

First, its USUALLY, not always, enclosed by a barrier. Is the ditch lining the road a barrier? Does that even matter? This property she took pictures of clearly adjoined his trailer.

3) The cop was nervous. He knew deep in his cop soul that HE couldn't trespass. He probably should have prevented that lady from trespassing until she had a warrent. She should have, after the coming out previously and being blocked, sought a court order. She probably could have gotten one in the interest of public health.

4) EVEN THE HEALTH INSPECTOR WASN'T SURE. Otherwise, she would have had no problem giving her full name. Why hide it? She's a public official. She should not act with deciet.

I think this pivots on whether a court would accept that she entered his curtilage

Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:36:05 AMNot watched this, but bet it's one idiot telling another idiot something that the first idiot thought he knew but didn't, then another idiot says something wrong to the first idiot, who tells the second idiot that actually he's right when actually he is wrong. The third idiot then threatens the first idiot who then does something illegal.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:29:51 AMRick S said: "They pulled up and saw, from the road, in plain site, that some activity was going on. That gives them the right for a warrentless search of the area in plain sight."

Seeing "activity" on private property gives the goverment the right to go check it out? Wow.

There are several elements at play here. This is a constitutional question and, though it hurts the minds of the non-legal public to comprehend, its actually irrelevant what he was doing.

THIS DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY. An emergency is something like a fire, a bomb, a killer on the loose. Someone doing construction, even of a septic tank (if thats true) perhaps without proper permits does not constitute an emergency.

BUT, this is actually in no way a clear case either way.

1) Open Fields Doctrine. Someone above mentioned this, and they have a point. However, it could be argued that the area she trespassed was within the trailer home's "curtilage."